[kurtsimonw]

So let me get this: Atletico overspent, can't afford to pay whatever so UEFA's response is to deny them prize money? (IMG:style_emoticons/default/laugh.gif)

Platini: Killing football since 2007. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/cool.gif)

[Milan Are Brilli...]

(IMG:style_emoticons/default/laugh.gif) to think these guys control European football.

[han2503]

When I see PSG banned or any other club that would bring UEFA money, then we'll talk.

[Jack Sparrow]

So let me get this: Atletico overspent, can't afford to pay whatever so UEFA's response is to deny them prize money? (IMG:style_emoticons/default/laugh.gif)

Platini: Killing football since 2007. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/cool.gif)

Yeah. Coz it's unfair to teams in Europe, who you know..actually live within their budgets that they can't compete, since teams like Atletico are essentially doping 'financially'. Could they have gotten a Falcao without unserviceable debts for e.g? And without Falcao could they have won anything. We don't know.

In any case, I think UEFA are absolutely right. If you have no methods to pay your debts you shouldn't be taking them and investing that money.

[kurtsimonw]

Yeah. Coz it's unfair to teams in Europe, who you know..actually live within their budgets that they can't compete, since teams like Atletico are essentially doping 'financially'. Could they have gotten a Falcao without unserviceable debts for e.g? And without Falcao could they have won anything. We don't know.

Did you seriously use the word 'fair'?

Is it 'fair' that clubs like Milan, United, City, Madrid, PSG, Barca, etc. have overspent for decades, won as a result and been able to market themselves because of the money they spent?

Is it 'fair' that clubs from small cities generally don't get big crowd, can't sell much merchandise all because they happen to be from a certain area?

All FFP will do is make sure the money making CL teams have more money to spend, ensuring they have a much better chance of qualifying than other teams. Over and over again to compete the cycle.

Then as your peice about Atletico suggests, any team that is sick of the cycle and tries to spend their way into the CL, guess what happens? They get denied the prize money. How do they break into the CL then Jack?

Most things are done to ensure the bigger name clubs get all the help they can. That's why group stages were introduced into the CL since it's harder for teams to **** up. That's why seeding was introduces so they all avoid each other. You can sit here as a Milan fan and cry that it's unfair. But in reality it's not, what Atletico are doing is EXACTLY the same as what 90% of other CL clubs have been doing for decades.

This post has been edited by kurtsimonw: Sep 12 2012, 08:35 AM

[Jack Bauer]

I'll believe it when I see it. I don't think Uefa have the balls to actually ban a powerhouse club from CL. Probably some of them will threaten with forming a new superleague or something and uefa will find a way to fold.

[KillerMax]

Great post Kurt. I hadn't thought about that way.

[Rossoneri7]

Yeah. Coz it's unfair to teams in Europe, who you know..actually live within their budgets that they can't compete, since teams like Atletico are essentially doping 'financially'. Could they have gotten a Falcao without unserviceable debts for e.g? And without Falcao could they have won anything. We don't know.

In any case, I think UEFA are absolutely right. If you have no methods to pay your debts you shouldn't be taking them and investing that money.

Agreed. I guess it just needs time to sink in for people to accept this shift in financial sustainability. Especially considering this shift was endorsed by most (if not all) of the major European clubs.

[kurtsimonw]

Especially considering this shift was endorsed by most (if not all) of the major European clubs.

Of course it was, they're the ones who benefit.

Europa quality teams generally don't make a profit. Villa made a profit on trasnfers a few years ago, qualified for the Europa League and made a loss. CL teams are usually the only money makers so by FFP rules they're the only ones allowed to spend. As I said before, it's keeping the cycle going and ensuring the big CL clubs remain in the CL.

It makes no sense to call this 'fair play'.

That's like saying people in Africa can't afford education, so them not having food is 'fair' since they don't have the money for it. Whereas I deserve my food, house, quality of living because I can afford it. It's not 'fair' at all, I just happened to be very fortunate to live where I do (just as big clubs are fortunate to be from big cities and have that marketability).

This post has been edited by kurtsimonw: Sep 12 2012, 08:40 AM

[Fillipo Simone]

Did you seriously use the word 'fair'?

Is it 'fair' that clubs like Milan, United, City, Madrid, PSG, Barca, etc. have overspent for decades, won as a result and been able to market themselves because of the money they spent?

Is it 'fair' that clubs from small cities generally don't get big crowd, can't sell much merchandise all because they happen to be from a certain area?

Well, to put Milan in the same basket with all those clubs isn't exactly fair either.

Small cities? That's life. Life isn't fair as well.

[kurtsimonw]

Well, to put Milan in the same basket with all those clubs isn't exactly fair either.

Small cities? That's life. Life isn't fair as well.

Well Silvio did put an awful lot of money into the club.

That's life? As is rich people owning clubs. UEFA are in for a big shock when United/Chelsea laugh them out of the building when they start preching this FFP rubbish to them for overspending.

[Jack Sparrow]

Sadly United and Chelsea are well within FFP norms. Or am I the only one who read of the mega rich sponsorships deals signed with Chevrolet and Gazprom respectively? (IMG:style_emoticons/default/unsure.gif)

[Rossoneri7]

Of course it was, they're the ones who benefit.

Europa quality teams generally don't make a profit. Villa made a profit on trasnfers a few years ago, qualified for the Europa League and made a loss. CL teams are usually the only money makers so by FFP rules they're the only ones allowed to spend. As I said before, it's keeping the cycle going and ensuring the big CL clubs remain in the CL.

It makes no sense to call this 'fair play'.

That's like saying people in Africa can't afford education, so them not having food is 'fair' since they don't have the money for it. Whereas I deserve my food, house, quality of living because I can afford it. It's not 'fair' at all, I just happened to be very fortunate to live where I do (just as big clubs are fortunate to be from big cities and have that marketability).

It depends on which side of the spectrum you look at it kurt.

For me, it seems very aggressive. Milan is the perfect example in this, take a look at our squad and do you see any correlation with our ambitions? I doubt this squad can achieve it. Then again this is for short-term objectives.

In the long-term however, the ultimate effect would be to reduce inflated transfer prices and wages, which had risen dramatically in recent years.

It will only make sense when it is fully functional and you start seeing the results. As far as your concerned, if Villa finish 7th and don't qualify for Europe, your Villa does not have to meet the FFP guidelines.

As for the CL teams being the only money makers, I think that is a bit exaggerated, as Milan is a prime example on this. Even if Milan wins the CL, it wont be able to afford a squad like Chelsea or City. Don't get me wrong, the prize money is significant, but is not classified as a steady income and polarized as such.

[kurtsimonw]

Sadly United and Chelsea are well within FFP norms. Or am I the only one who read of the mega rich sponsorships deals signed with Chevrolet and Gazprom respectively? (IMG:style_emoticons/default/unsure.gif)

If Chelsea are within FFP then this shows that it's more definitely about keeping the rich richer. They spent £80m without selling a penny this summer. And Chelsea are probably the smallest 'big club' due to the tiny size of their stadium. So if they are fine, then this just shows it's only really going to affect the 'little clubs'.

It will only make sense when it is fully functional and you start seeing the results. As far as your concerned, if Villa finish 7th and don't qualify for Europe, your Villa does not have to meet the FFP guidelines.

That's the problem though. For us to push on, realistically, we're going to need to spend money. Anyone outside of the big clubs will. But as we all run a loss as it is, spending will just mean that we get denied prize money/entry to Europe.

The only way teams can qualify or stay qualified is CL money. Spurs spent a fortune and got in, then the CL money has helped them remain competitive for a little while. Now that they failed to get in again, it's likely they won't be as competitive.

As I said to Jack, it's making sure the usual suspects keep their place to me.

[Jack Bauer]

Joe Hart...

(IMG:http://media.comicvine.com/uploads/12/124493/2554129-jesus_facepalm.jpg)